On Jun 2, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Anthony's updates to PEP 320 (the 2.4 release schedule) reminded me > that I still haven't decided on the decorator syntax. I still hate > the most popular proposal (def foo(args) [decorators]: body) and my > own proposal is unpopular. I just saw the Java metadata syntax again > and want to think about being inspired by that instead of by the C# > syntax. On the plus side, Java's @name(kwargs) syntax allows us to > put decorators in front methods and classes without ambiguous syntax; > on the minus side, using up a potential operator character for one > specific purpose should not be done lightly. But I don't want to get > too deep into this discussion -- I just want to suggest that we put > this off and get 2.4 on the road without any decorator syntax at all. > What do people think of that? > > Posts proposing syntax alternatives will be deleted unread. I would love to have method decorators in Python 2.4. I don't even care which syntax it has at this point. I'll donate more money to the PSF, or write the implementation myself, if that's what it takes. I write a lot of PyObjC code, which often requires method wrapping so that it can bridge with existing Objective C code properly. It pains me every time I have to write foo = bar(foo), for arbitrarily long foo (and they do get arbitrarily long). It would make a lot of Mac OS X developers very happy, especially myself, if there was an alternative. It would probably be quite practical for ctypes developers as well. -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2357 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040602/28aa6f33/smime.bin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4